From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 19 22:56:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144BB16A401 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:56:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl (smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl [213.51.146.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E18843D68 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:56:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.146.190] (port=51420 helo=smtp1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl) by smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FL6pQ-0000Zy-Nu for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:56:52 +0100 Received: from cp464173-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([84.27.215.228]:58576 helo=desktop.homenet) by smtp1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FL6pN-0000Rh-8V for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:56:49 +0100 From: Danny Pansters To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:56:50 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603192356.50227.danny@ricin.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: BSD License "Innocence" Clause Proposal X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:56:58 -0000 On Sunday 19 March 2006 23:16, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > I'm not sure if I should start advocating the idea here. > Some people must've had this thought before I ever > did, I hope they will support me. > > We need a special clause in the license we release > our work under. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that > it will be very hard to devise and formulate. Basically, > it should state that under no circumstances and under > no legislation should ever any entity be punished for > breaking the license terms. > > I just can't sleep tight when a man can get sued and > prosecuted because he copied a piece of my work > without mentioning my name, whatever his motives > are. At the same time, I respect my work and the work > of other, and appreciate a way to state that names > should be mentioned. > > So we need a "law", that can be followed and can > be broken, but can't be enforced. > > What do you think, guys? I think that's called public domain. Since the BSD license like GPL defaults to normal copyright if not followed or accepted it's at *your* descretion whether or not someone can/will be sued, and no one elses. You're the copyright holder and you decided to cover reproduction with the BSDL (you can make exceptions as you please as well) on top of copyright with or without a declaration of you asserting your copyright -- which some feel makes your standing stronger (see also: "all rights reserved") in case you get involved in a copyright issue. The licenses themselves could only become of legal importance if you accuse someone of breach while they say they still accept the license but believe they abide to it. But that can only be started by your declaring copyright infringement. This is more prominent in the GPL but it applies for the BSDL as well I think. So what I think (IANALIJRS) is that you're proposing something that essentially gives up copyright. That's the public domain as I understand it. Dan